Abstract
Domestic violence against women (VAW) is one of the pressing issues in society, but it often remains latent due to underreporting and social norms that place women in a disadvantaged position. Despite the implementation of legal acts and policies to ensure gender equality and the elimination of VAW, these types of offenses are still concealed, resulting in a cycle of abuse and silence. This study utilizes a quantitative research design to examine the issue of domestic VAW in Kazakhstan, based on data from two distinct surveys. The initial survey focused on a sample of the Kazakhstani population, consisting of 395 respondents aged 18 to 65. The second survey involved 29 professionals working at three regional crisis centers and organizations that support victims of domestic VAW. Furthermore, official data from the Committee on Legal Statistics and Special Records of the General Prosecutor’s Office of Kazakhstan regarding VAW during the period of 2018 to 2022 was analyzed. The findings indicate that there is a low probability of reporting domestic VAW to the authorities, highlighting a gap in awareness and trust in available legal and support systems. The study contributes to the field by identifying barriers to reporting domestic VAW and assessing the effectiveness of government interventions.
Keywords
Introduction
Domestic VAW constitutes a pervasive issue globally, and Kazakhstan is no exception. Despite constitutional guarantees of gender equality and family protection, Kazakhstan faces significant challenges in addressing gender equality and domestic VAW. 1 Nevertheless, the government of Kazakhstan has taken active steps to combat domestic VAW. Kazakhstan has ratified the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) on June 29, 1998, Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women (DEVAW) on December 20, 1993, alongside other significant international treaties pertaining to human rights and the elimination of discrimination. The government has committed to aligning its laws, policies, and practices with the principles and requirements of these international instruments. These efforts are evidenced by the enactment and implementation of various legislative and policy initiatives, such as the Concept of Family and Gender Policy in the Republic of Kazakhstan until 2030 adopted on December 6, 2016, the Concept of Ensuring Public Safety in partnership with society for 2024-2028 adopted on December 29, 2023, the Law on the Prevention of Domestic Violence adopted on December 4, 2009, and the annual National Report «Kazakhstan’s Families». 2 Thus, the government’s agenda to combat domestic VAW has seen significant legislative activity, particularly with the introduction of the Law on Prevention of Domestic Violence in 2009. This initiative, which took place under Nursultan Nazarbayev’s presidency, was largely fueled by Kazakhstan’s greater commitment to international human rights norms and a growing domestic advocacy network led by women’s NGOs. 3 It was also aligned with Kazakhstan’s bid to enhance its international standing before hosting major international events such as its ambition to become a chairperson of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, reflecting a strategic alignment of domestic policy with global image considerations. 4
On April 15, 2024, a new Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan was adopted to introduce amendments and additions to some legislative acts on ensuring women’s rights and children’s safety, better known as the “Law on Domestic Violence” or “Saltanat Law”. The adoption of this law coincided with the high-profile trial of the ex-Minister of National Economy K. Bishimbayev, who killed his wife Saltanat in November 2023. Under the new Law, the responsibility for collecting evidence in cases of domestic violence is assigned to the police – whereas previously it was assigned exclusively to the survivors themselves. In addition, the police will be required to register and investigate all cases of domestic violence, even in the absence of a statement from the victim, including responding to reports of domestic violence in the media or on social networks. The introduction of this law is likely a response to a combination of factors such as increased awareness and public pressure, reflecting a broader trend of increasing legal protection for vulnerable populations and aligning domestic policies with global standards. The specific focus on police responsibility and proactive investigation marks a shift towards a more institutionalized and systematic approach to combating domestic violence, aiming to reduce the burden on victims and increase accountability for perpetrators.
However, it is worth noting that none of these documents provide precise definitions for the terms «violence against women» or «domestic violence». Moreover, the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan does not recognize domestic violence as a separate criminal offense. The legislation of Kazakhstan uses the term “domestic violence”, characterized by acts committed between individuals in family or household relationships, including spouses, former spouses, cohabiting or formerly cohabiting individuals, close relatives, and individuals who have a common child (children). 5 In Kazakhstan, violence committed against divorced women by their former spouses is classified as domestic violence according to current legislation, including the Law on the Prevention of Domestic Violence. This ensures that women continue to receive protection from abuse even after the dissolution of their marriage.
It is also important to note that the legislation related to combating domestic VAW in Kazakhstan is fragmented, and there is duplication of key provisions in multiple laws, including the Law on the Prevention of Offenses, the Law on the Prevention of Domestic Violence, and the Law on the Prevention of Offenses among Minors and the Prevention of Child Neglect and Juvenile Delinquency. A special report on countering domestic violence by the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Republic of Kazakhstan highlighted three primary issues in combating domestic VAW: the reactive nature of interventions with victims, an uneven distribution of crisis centers across various regions, and the inaccessibility of the centers’ locations for the majority of victims of domestic violence. Kazakhstan has established crisis centers for victims of domestic violence across the country. 6 The first government-supported crisis centers were established in 2001, often in collaboration with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and international organizations. As of 2024, there are 41 crisis centers in Kazakhstan, with 14 being state-operated. These centers and shelters offer women legal, psychological, and various other forms of support, all in line with established standards of care. Furthermore, commissions dedicated to women’s affairs are present in all regions, operating under local government bodies known as akimats. There are also specialized divisions within the police department focused on protecting women from violence. While Kazakhstan has made progress in addressing domestic VAW through legislative and policy initiatives, effective combating this issue remains challenging due to the absence of specific definitions and strategic focus, which are exacerbated by fragmented legislation.
International human rights organizations and independent observers stress the prevalence of domestic VAW in Kazakhstan. 7 This aligns with the global trend where, in 2020, 16% of young women aged 15-24 experienced physical or sexual violence from a partner or husband. 8 A 2015 United Nations Economic and Social Affairs report found that in the majority of surveyed countries, less than 40% of women who suffer violence seek any kind of help, and less than 10% report violence to the police. 9 Freedom House revealed that domestic VAW represents a significant issue in Kazakhstan that frequently remains unaddressed. 10 It particularly highlights the issue of early and forced marriages in rural regions. Amnesty International stresses that VAW remains prevalent across the nation. 11 For first-time offenders, the only consequence was a formal warning from the police. According to the Human Rights Watch, Kazakhstan enhanced legal protections for women by removing the option for reconciliation following repeated family abuse incidents. 12 Despite these advances, domestic VAW remains a pervasive and underreported issue, as it has not yet been designated as a specific criminal offense. To illustrate, a recent report found that more than 400 women are killed by spousal violence annually in Kazakhstan. 13 This points to the importance of studying the dynamics and root causes of domestic VAW in Kazakhstan. Understanding these factors is essential for creating effective interventions and improving current legislation that aims to prevent violence, protect victims, and promote gender equality.
Recent global research on domestic VAW has significantly advanced the understanding of its prevalence and impact. 14 However, several gaps in research remain, particularly regarding the underreporting of domestic VAW within specific contexts. Identifying and addressing these gaps is crucial for developing targeted interventions to effectively combat domestic VAW. Therefore, this study aims to examine comprehensively the challenges and perspectives surrounding domestic VAW in Kazakhstan. The study was guided by the following research question: What are the underlying factors contributing to the underreporting of domestic VAW in Kazakhstan, and how effective are the existing legal and support frameworks in addressing domestic VAW?
Literature review
Domestic VAW is one of the most common forms of gender-based violence. It can manifest in a variety of ways, including physical, psychological, sexual, economic, cyber abuse, verbal insults, and financial deprivation. 15 Common causes of domestic VAW involve sociocultural, economic, and psychological factors such as social acceptance of violence, gender inequality, poverty, unemployment, economic dependence, early marriage, lack of information, and alcohol consumption by the spouse. 16
Studies from different parts of the world provide valuable insights into how similar underlying causes of domestic VAW manifest in varied sociocultural environments. For example, Iregui-Bohórquez et al. examined the impact of women’s earnings on domestic violence in rural Colombia and found that women’s higher income generation leads to a decrease in domestic violence. 17 Dabaghi et al. analyzed the relationship between socioeconomic status and domestic VAW in Iran, and by categorizing women into high and low socioeconomic classes, identified that socioeconomic status affects the likelihood and type of domestic violence experienced. 18 The authors contend that women’s economic dependence on men and cultural attitudes towards violence are the primary reasons for the normalization of VAW.
A survey on VAW in Kazakhstan revealed that, in the context of Kazakhstan, the prevalence of intimate partner violence (IPV) among women did not vary significantly between urban and rural areas. 19 However, educational and economic factors showed some influence. Generally, women with only elementary education experienced IPV more frequently than those with higher education levels. These findings stress the importance of recognizing and addressing the sociocultural, economic, and psychological factors that contribute to domestic VAW.
Despite existing data, the true prevalence of domestic VAW is likely much higher due to significant underreporting. Research shows that underreporting is a major problem worldwide, with estimates indicating that only a small percentage of incidents of domestic VAW is reported to authorities. 20 Underreporting of domestic VAW is often attributed to social, cultural, and economic barriers. Factors such as fear of retaliation, social stigma, patriarchal attitudes, lack of trust in authorities, and economic dependency on their abusers significantly contribute to the decision of many women to refrain from reporting domestic violence. 21 This gap emphasizes the need for more in-depth research to comprehend the factors that prevent women from seeking help and to design interventions that can effectively address these barriers. 22
Recent research highlights the complexity of the effectiveness of government measures in preventing and reporting domestic violence, emphasizing the significance of legal reforms and societal norm changes to combat systematic VAW effectively. 23 A recent study found that flaws in national legislation and patriarchal societal influences have caused the failure to address violence and discrimination against women in Nigeria effectively. 24 Meanwhile, a study on the effect of the introduction of the Anti-Domestic Violence Law in 2016 in China found that the Law is seen more as a social law than a criminal justice mandate, with an emphasis on preserving family harmony over protecting victims, which does not strongly encourage the arrest of domestic violence perpetrators. 25 Thus, the authors argue that the current Anti-Domestic Violence Law does not adequately support officers in adopting proactive and punitive actions against domestic violence offenders and a more explicit legal mandate may be necessary. Similarly, a study on the implementation of the Anti-Domestic Violence Law in China revealed that the effectiveness of the Law is limited by its scope and the restrictions of the Chinese legal system. 26 The authors contend that despite the reforms, there is a recognized need for further improvements to the law to adequately protect victims and address the complexities of domestic violence. This includes expanding the definition of domestic violence, enhancing punitive measures against perpetrators, and reducing the burden of proof on victims.
Along with legal measures, other approaches such as economic empowerment, education, and addressing societal norms are essential for effectively combating domestic VAW. Iregui-Bohórquez et al. emphasize the importance of providing women with more formal employment opportunities that offer higher remuneration and better employment conditions, as well as enhancing their educational opportunities and economic independence. 27 Sovann studied interventions to tackle VAW in Cambodia and identified that interventions focused on education, networking, advocacy, and empowerment have demonstrated effectiveness in addressing VAW in Cambodia. 28 The findings of the study by Karlsson et al. suggest that increasing public awareness about the prevalence and severity of IPV against women can strengthen perceptions of its seriousness. 29 Meanwhile, a study on the role of smartphones in women’s empowerment and domestic violence prevention in Bangladesh found that despite the benefits of smartphones, their use as a tool against domestic VAW is limited by societal norms and gender roles. 30 The authors argue that combating domestic VAW requires addressing deep-rooted societal norms and gender inequalities. In addition, combating against gender-based violence should involve recognizing and addressing the structural, cultural, and direct forms of violence through the educational system. A key component of this strategy is emphasizing the link between girls’ education, their future economic independence, and the effective elimination of domestic violence. 31 A report by the World Bank stresses the importance of education for girls and notes that girls who finish secondary education are more likely to lead healthier, wealthier lives as adults, have smaller families, and raise children who face lower risks of illness and mortality and are more likely to prosper. 32 To summarize, recent research stresses the need for a holistic approach to combat domestic VAW, which includes legal reforms, economic empowerment of women, and interventions that address gender inequality and discrimination.
In the context of Kazakhstan, only a few studies have examined domestic VAW. Joshi and Childress analyzed domestic violence in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan, and revealed that compared to Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, Kazakhstan has a significantly lower prevalence of acceptance of IPV among married women. 33 The study indicates that less educated women, residing in middle-class urban areas, and living in certain regions, were more likely to accept IPV. This suggests that factors such as education and regional identity play significant roles in shaping attitudes toward IPV. Meanwhile, another study found that the discourse surrounding victims of sexual and domestic violence in Kazakhstan frequently involves gaslighting 34 and how societal norms and online discourse contribute to victim-blaming and stigmatization, reinforcing the acceptability of VAW who deviate from established gender norms. 35 Thus, the study highlights how such discourses contribute to the normalization of VAW, especially when their behavior is deemed not to align with traditional feminine roles. Despite existing knowledge, significant gaps persist in understanding the factors that lead to the underreporting of domestic VAW in Kazakhstan. This study intends to bridge this research gap by examining the underlying factors contributing to the underreporting of domestic VAW in Kazakhstan and the effectiveness of the existing legal and support frameworks in addressing this issue.
Methods
This study employs a quantitative, cross-sectional research design, utilizing an online survey as the data collection instrument. The survey facilitates access to large samples of the population simultaneously and enables the gathering of data comparatively quickly. 36 To gauge public perception and awareness of domestic VAW in Kazakhstan, two distinct surveys were conducted.
The first survey targeted a sample of the Kazakhstani population, encompassing 395 respondents aged 18 to 65. This survey aimed to assess the general public’s awareness and sensitivity towards domestic VAW and to understand their perspectives on the reasons for underreporting such incidents and the effectiveness of the existing legal and support frameworks. The sample of 395 respondents was carefully selected using stratified random sampling to ensure that it represents the diverse demographics of Kazakhstan’s population.
The second survey focused on a more specialized group, surveying 29 employees working in crisis centers and organizations that assist victims of domestic violence. For this survey, participants were selected through purposive sampling from three crisis centers. In the region being examined, three centers have been established to offer social support to victims of domestic violence. These include two state-operated crisis centers, and one public shelter funded by NGOs.
The two state-operated crisis centers included in our study are managed by state funds but staffed by individuals who are employed through a private company that specializes in social service provision. This arrangement is intended to maintain operational independence while receiving state funding. The public shelter funded by NGOs operates entirely independently of the state, both in terms of funding and staffing. A survey was conducted among employees of both state-operated crisis centers and public shelter funded by NGOs. The survey focused exclusively on employees who have direct interaction with victims, encompassing medical staff, psychologists, social workers, legal consultants, and volunteers at these centers. Out of the 45 professionals employed across the three crisis centers, 29 participated in the survey, representing approximately 64% of the workforce. This survey was designed to gather insights from professionals directly involved in addressing domestic VAW in Kazakhstan, aiming to understand their views on the prevalence of such cases.
Both surveys were conducted using the Google Forms, utilizing interactive questionnaires to facilitate ease of response and engagement. The two surveys, though distinct in their target populations, are intrinsically linked as they aim to provide a holistic understanding of the public and professional perspectives on domestic VAW in Kazakhstan. Surveys were distributed via emails, social media postings, and direct invitations to crisis centers for targeted outreach. This multi-channel approach was intended to maximize reach and ensure a diverse sample of respondents. The survey questionnaires were accessible on Google Forms for 2 months: from June to August 2023. No external funding was received for the conducting of these surveys.
The surveys were conducted in Russian and were subsequently translated into English by researchers. The decision to conduct the surveys in Russian rather than Kazakh was based on the broader linguistic accessibility in urban areas of Kazakhstan, where Russian serves as a lingua franca. However, conducting the survey in Russian may have inadvertently excluded or marginalized Kazakh-speaking participants. This could have resulted in a sampling bias, wherein the views and experiences of Kazakh-speaking individuals may have been underrepresented. Future research should consider offering surveys in both Kazakh and Russian to reduce language-related bias and ensure broader inclusivity.
After closing the surveys, the responses were imported into a Microsoft Excel file. For data preparation purposes, the first step was data cleaning, which is important in quantitative data analysis as the data quality determines the data analysis results. 37 The second step involved transforming variables – converting survey responses from words to numbers and categories to analyze the SPSS data. Overall, 395 and 29 fully completed responses from two surveys were imported into IBM SPSS Statistics for analysis. Depending on the variable, descriptive statistics (frequencies, means, standard deviations, and variances) were calculated to determine general trends and characteristics of the data. To triangulate the survey results, official statistics on domestic crimes for the period 2018-2022 were also examined.
Findings
The survey findings revealed challenges and perceptions surrounding the reporting of domestic violence incidents to law enforcement agencies, as well as the effectiveness of existing government measures in combating domestic VAW. The findings demonstrated a significant hesitation among victims of domestic violence to report incidents to law enforcement agencies. Only 34% of respondents indicated that they would report domestic violence incidents. Among the reasons for not reporting to law enforcement agencies, respondents cited the following factors: the incident was not serious enough (22.1%), feelings of shame (2.3%), lack of belief in receiving help (10.4%), seeking assistance from other institutions (4.8%), other reasons (26.9%) and 33.2% of respondents were unsure or unable to specify the reasons for not reporting to law enforcement agencies. The category labeled “other reasons” (26.9%) encompasses a variety of responses that did not fit into the predefined categories. These could include fear of retaliation from the abuser, fear of further violence, or concern over family disruption, among others. When respondents mentioned seeking assistance from “other institutions” (4.8%), they referred to alternatives such as family support, community leaders, local NGOs specializing in domestic abuse, or religious institutions. This reflects a reliance on non-police interventions which may be perceived as more sympathetic or less threatening to familial or social stability. The 33.2% of respondents who were “unsure or unable to specify the reasons” indicates a segment of the sample that either could not clearly articulate their reasons at the time of the survey or felt ambiguous about their motives for not reporting. This differs from the “other reasons” category, which includes specific, albeit varied, reasons that respondents could identify and articulate, but which did not fall into the main predefined categories. This diversity of viewpoints underscores a significant gap in awareness among women regarding the available forms of assistance and the organizations that provide support in such cases. This gap, fueled by societal norms that tolerate domestic violence and compounded by ineffective legal protections, contributes to the concealment of such acts. Concurrently, the survey revealed several factors that exacerbate the latency in criminal case processing, including the ineffectiveness of law enforcement agencies in detecting crimes against women, the neglect of declared but unregistered crimes, and the low level of reporting by citizens and victims.
To evaluate the effectiveness of governmental interventions in preventing domestic VAW, we posed a question regarding the effectiveness of the activities of state authorities to both citizens and crisis center employees. An analysis of respondents’ answers revealed similar responses from both groups, as depicted in Figure 1. The responses closely aligned with the ratings of “very effective” (19% and 17.2%, respectively) and “rather ineffective” (12.2% and 13.8%, respectively). Crisis center employees rated the work of government agencies more positively (41.4%) compared to the general population (14.2%). However, it is important to note that a significant percentage of respondents found it difficult to assess the work of government agencies (38.6% of respondents and 24.1% of employees), indicating existing problems in the system of interventions aimed at protecting women from domestic violence. Participants’ assessment of the effectiveness of the activities of state bodies aimed at combating VAW.
To understand the processes of prevention and measures aimed at reducing the level of domestic VAW, a corresponding question was posed to both categories of respondents. As Figure 2 indicates, both general respondents and crisis center workers consider the reinforcement of punishment as the most appropriate measure (34.2% of general respondents and 34.5% of crisis center workers). With regards to the importance of conducting informational campaigns among youth to reduce latency and increase awareness, both categories of respondents answered almost equally (7.9% of general respondents and 6.9% of crisis center workers). Moreover, the employees consider conducting informational campaigns among the general population, as well as strengthening measures to identify and prevent domestic violence, as important prerequisites for reducing violence in the family, with 24.1% supporting this view compared to 10.2% of the general population. Finally, 15% of general respondents and 17.1% of crisis center workers found it difficult to answer this question. While both groups reported similar rates of difficulty, the slight difference may suggest that crisis center staff, despite their direct involvement and familiarity with the complexities of domestic violence intervention, face challenges in providing a definitive assessment of effectiveness. Their hesitation could reflect a deeper awareness of the limitations and challenges within interventions, such as inconsistent outcomes, resource constraints, or the unpredictability of survivor recovery trajectories. Participants’ attitudes towards measures to reduce the level of violent manifestations against women.
In addressing the question “Who can actually help victims of domestic violence?”, the responses were as follows: crisis center staff were identified as the primary source of assistance, receiving 44.5% of the responses; police units for the protection of women victims of domestic violence were next, with 10.3%; law enforcement agencies, including prosecution and courts, were cited by 3.4%; and relatives and friends were mentioned by 6.9% of respondents (Figure 3). Significantly, 17.2% of respondents did not express a preference for any specific organization but indicated that all the mentioned services could offer help. This pattern of response suggests that victims of domestic violence may lack adequate information about where to seek comprehensive assistance, leading them to rely on their close ones for help. This also indicates that some respondents may find it hard to articulate a clear perspective on the matter. The most notable disparity is in the confidence in crisis center specialists, with crisis center staff members expressing significantly higher trust (44.5%) compared to the general respondents (4%). While it may be expected that crisis center staff would evaluate their own work positively, this stark contrast raises important questions about public perceptions of the effectiveness of support services for domestic violence victims. The low level of trust among the general public suggests a potential disconnect between the services offered and the awareness or understanding of these services within the community. This disparity may indicate a need for improved outreach and education regarding the roles and capabilities of crisis centers in addressing domestic VAW in Kazakhstan. Participants’ attitudes towards subjects of assistance to victims of domestic violence.
Since crisis center staff and domestic violence victim support centers work directly with victims of violence, a question was posed to understand the most effective forms of protection against domestic violence. The following results were obtained: 74.2% of the surveyed staff members consider criminal liability to be the most effective form of protection, 24.1% prefer administrative liability, and 3.4% indicated that the choice of responsibility should depend on the situation.
The question “How accessible are the measures, services, and tools developed by the government to protect women from domestic violence?” explored the effectiveness of current governmental interventions. The responses from staff members are as follows: 31% of the surveyed staff members answered “accessible,” 65.6% answered “partially accessible,” and 3.4% answered “not accessible.” The analysis of respondents’ answers indicates that only 31% of the respondents noted that government services and measures are accessible. The majority of the government-provided measures, services, and tools are still either inaccessible or only partially accessible to victims of domestic violence.
The assessment of administrative resources of the government was evaluated by posing a question about the availability or absence of human, financial, and technical resources for the implementation of government programs and strategies. 79.3% of the staff members responded negatively, 17.2% responded with sufficient resources, and 3.4% indicated that resources are not always sufficient. The responses from crisis center staff and domestic violence victim support center staff show the difficulties in implementing programs due to a lack of administrative resources. In conclusion, the survey findings highlight the significant challenges in reporting and addressing domestic VAW in Kazakhstan, revealing a critical need for enhanced information dissemination, stronger legislative measures, and improved accessibility and effectiveness of government and crisis intervention services to more effectively protect and support victims.
Number of registered criminal offenses according to the CPIS.
Information on administrative offenses committed in the domestic sphere during the Period of 2018-2022.
Information on admissibility to court under Articles 73, 73-1, 73-2 of the Administrative Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan in 2018-2022.
To sum up, the statistical data shows a disturbing persistence of domestic VAW, with a notable underreporting and lack of accountability for offenders. The data indicates a critical gap between the legislative framework and its practical implementation.
Discussion
The findings highlight a complex landscape of domestic VAW in Kazakhstan, marked by a disturbing persistence of offenses and a significant gap between legal frameworks and their enforcement. Despite Kazakhstan’s commitment to gender equality, the data indicate that domestic VAW is a persistent issue. The relatively high number of offenses committed within the domestic sphere, along with a low rate of reporting and accountability for perpetrators, reflects deep-seated cultural norms and economic dependencies that hinder victims’ willingness to seek help. Furthermore, the data on the low rate of prosecution for domestic violence cases suggests a crucial deficiency in the legal and administrative response to these crimes, indicating a level of impunity that may discourage reporting and intervention. The state plays a pivotal role in either perpetuating or combating VAW, as its actions or inactions significantly contribute to establishing a culture of impunity, directly impacting the prevalence and tolerance of gender-based violence within society. 44
Consistent with global trends, domestic VAW in Kazakhstan is significantly underreported, and legal systems often fail to adequately protect victims or hold perpetrators accountable. Literature from other contexts has also identified similar challenges, including societal stigma, lack of trust in law enforcement agencies, and economic dependence, as major obstacles to combating domestic VAW. 45 Heron et al. found that nearly half of the women in the study cited economic dependence on their abusive partners as a major factor in staying in their relationships. 46 These findings stress the critical role of economic independence in the context of domestic VAW. Social services, NGOs, and government programs need to offer targeted support that can provide immediate financial aid, housing solutions, and long-term economic empowerment programs. Currently, the government organized shelters for victims of domestic violence across all regions of Kazakhstan and out of 49 crisis centers, 39 provide shelter facilities. 47 Meanwhile, special report on countering domestic VAW in Kazakhstan by The Commissioner for Human Rights of the Republic of Kazakhstan (2024) stresses that in 2023, the centers provided services to over 4 thousand people, of whom more than 3 thousand received medical care and about 1 thousand were employed and documented. 48 It is a significant step towards addressing the issue of domestic VAW. However, in the examined region, there are only 45 employees across three crisis centers dedicated to supporting domestic violence victims. This limited workforce raises significant concerns about the capacity of these centers to effectively address the needs of the population they serve. The small number of staff may be a reflection of the wider structural challenges in addressing the prevalence of domestic violence in Kazakhstan. Adequate funding is essential for recruiting, training, and retaining qualified personnel who can provide comprehensive support to victims. This lack of investment in human resources may indicate that domestic VAW is not prioritized within broader social and governmental agendas in Kazakhstan. Insufficient staffing can result in inadequate support, leaving victims feeling isolated and discouraged from seeking help. This dynamic not only undermines the effectiveness of the services provided but can also perpetuate the cycle of violence, as victims may perceive the available resources as insufficient to meet their needs.
In addition to the physical protection provided by shelters and crisis centers, the legal framework surrounding domestic violence requires ongoing review and strengthening. It is important to ensure that laws are properly enforced and that legal processes are victim-centered and provide trauma-informed psychological support. 49 The trends and discrepancies observed in both surveys highlight the need for strengthened law enforcement mechanisms, enhanced legal provisions, and more effective interventions to address and reduce domestic violence. It also suggests the importance of revisiting the legal and administrative frameworks to ensure they are adequately equipped to handle the complexities of domestic violence cases and hold offenders accountable effectively.
A proactive approach is required to address offenses related to domestic VAW, which focuses on prevention at an early stage rather than exclusively on post-incident reactions. The strategies currently in place do not give enough attention to rehabilitating offenders. This calls for the creation of a comprehensive framework to guide the implementation of psycho-corrective programs, alongside specialized training to combat contributing factors such as alcoholism. Making informed, strategic decisions requires the use of systemic and predictive analytics. Moreover, the establishment of public oversight mechanisms for government institutions is crucial to dismantle the perception of criminal impunity, enhance accountability, and effectiveness in tackling domestic violence. 50
To effectively address the deeply ingrained cultural norms and behaviors among Kazakhstan’s citizens, particularly those related to “masculinity” “dependence,” “compliance with patriarchal societal expectations,” “keeping problems within the family,” “self-blame,” “concern for children,” “fear of judgment from relatives,” and “shame among colleagues,” as cited by survey responses, a comprehensive strategy is essential. This strategy should aim to transform societal perceptions of gender roles, both within the domestic sphere and the broader community. 51 Key to this transformation is the development and implementation of multifaceted programs designed to challenge and redefine men’s understanding of women’s roles in both society and the family. Such programs need to be grounded in respect, equality, and partnership principles, moving away from traditional patriarchal views. Using media platforms, such as the press, television, and social media, is crucial for amplifying the discussion on VAW. 52 While social media can empower women experiencing domestic VAW by providing information and support, it can also allow abusers to maintain a constant presence in their victim’s life even after separation. 53 Thus, these efforts should not only increase awareness, but also promote the depiction of healthy family dynamics, emphasize the importance of shared responsibilities, and display positive models of masculinity that reject violence.
The fact that domestic VAW is a manifestation of gender-based discrimination is crucial. It aids in comprehending the complexity of domestic violence and its pervasive nature within social norms and structures. Understanding domestic violence in this broader context requires a holistic approach that extends beyond addressing individual incidents of domestic violence. A country-specific framework that could work in Kazakhstan might include legal and institutional reforms, education and training, and partnerships with NGOs. Essential to this approach is the adoption of anti-discrimination laws, which serve as a crucial step in challenging the societal norms and attitudes that justify or tolerate VAW. 54 However, despite the existence of anti-discrimination laws in many jurisdictions, their enforcement remains a significant challenge. Therefore, while the recognition of domestic VAW as a form of gender-based discrimination is a critical step towards understanding and combating this issue, the effective enforcement of anti-discrimination laws and commitment at all levels of government and society, along with international cooperation remain essential challenges to be addressed for meaningful progress.
Conclusion
This study intended to comprehensively examine the underlying factors contributing to the underreporting of domestic VAW in Kazakhstan and to assess the effectiveness of existing legal and support systems in protecting victims. It contributes to a deeper comprehending of the multifaceted nature of domestic VAW in Kazakhstan, revealing significant challenges in reporting and systemic gaps in legal enforcement. By drawing on survey data and official statistics, the study highlights the complexities of addressing domestic VAW within the existing legal and societal framework, emphasizing the discrepancy between the legal frameworks and its practical application. The findings offer a nuanced understanding of public and professional perceptions of domestic violence, the effectiveness of current measures, and the challenges faced in seeking assistance. They also highlight the latent nature of domestic violence crimes and the significant difficulties that prevent effective reporting and intervention. The issue is further aggravated by the low levels of reporting and the lack of accountability for perpetrators, indicating a demand for systemic change. Therefore, the study advocates for a holistic approach that addresses both immediate needs and root causes, providing insights for policy, societal change, and comprehensive support mechanisms to combat this pervasive problem. Furthermore, recognizing domestic violence as a manifestation of systemic gender-based discrimination is pivotal for devising effective interventions. Equally important is the acknowledgment that domestic VAW constitutes a grave violation of women’s fundamental human rights, including the right to live free from violence, coercion, and fear. Effective interventions must not only address the immediate safety concerns but also ensure that women’s rights to dignity and autonomy. This broader perspective reinforces the need for comprehensive approaches that prioritize both gender equality and human rights in combating domestic VAW.
The findings of the study call for a reforming Kazakhstan’s response to domestic VAW. First, the study emphasizes the importance of stronger legal mechanisms to protect domestic violence victims and hold perpetrators accountable. This entails examining current laws to guarantee their comprehensiveness and effective enforcement. Second, the study indicates that government-provided measures and services are only partially accessible to victims of domestic violence. There is a need for accessible and comprehensive support services such as shelters, legal aid, and counseling.
While this study offers valuable insights, it also has limitations. The reliance on self-reported data may introduce biases, and the scope of the study is confined to Kazakhstan, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other contexts. Future research should aim to incorporate longitudinal data to gain a better understanding the dynamics of domestic violence over time and to explore the effectiveness of interventions in greater detail.
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
